Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Nothing chosen

Previously, the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) measurement result published in February 2019 for Cambridge City Council is 388% therefore there were no required consequences. The HDT measurement result for South Cambridgeshire was much lower, scoring 78% with a consequence of a buffer. However, this had no consequences either due to the MHCLG recommending for housing trajectories for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire to be considered jointly, including future calculations for the 5 year housing land supply. MHCLG acknowledges that the sequences for development involves more development in Cambridge initially in the plan period and more development later in the plan period in South Cambridgeshire. Altogether, it has been estimated that more than 30,000 extra homes, above those already in the pipeline, could be built in the Greater Cambridge area by 2040. This is a positive but should be complemented with additional infrastructure and public services to not have a compromise on the quality of life. Both councils should carefully consider the priorities of their area to ensure local needs are being met. For example, a top priority for the South Cambridgeshire District Council is to reduce commuting travel and ensure the provision of homes specifically targets essential local workers. In addition, the demographic profile is also changing, with the proportion of those aged over 65 significantly increasing. Therefore, the Councils should promote a range of housing options across all tenures to accommodate for the growth of people and families. The CPIER makes this clear, acknowledging that each area needs to carry out their own detailed modelling work which will form part of a concrete evidence base.

A mix of different tenures and products should be offered to cater for the needs of all in Greater Cambridge. The Whittlesford proposals have the potential to deliver an innovative, bespoke housing solution with supporting community and work facilities to meet the specific needs of South Cambridge and North Uttlesford, including meeting the needs of the expansion of the Wellcome Genome Campus and other new and expanding employment opportunities to the south of Cambridge. This would include a diverse mix of housing types and tenures which are accessible to a wide range of local people, with houses and apartments to buy, rent or share. Grosvenor would seek to work with major employers – creating a pathway to the right housing for their people – in a location that removes the need to own a car. We would welcome further discussions with the Council as to the type of housing that could be provided in this location. Please also refer to story board 3.

Ensuring sufficient infrastructure is provided to support growth could contribute positively towards the sustainability objectives of the Plan. Providing sufficient transport infrastructure, including walking and cycling, could encourage people in the area to be more active and would also help to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants from transport, having positive effects health and air quality. Providing the right community infrastructure together with communications infrastructure could help with social inclusion and allow for more flexible working which would contribute to a reduction in traffic as well as encouraging new businesses in to the area. Furthermore, the locating of development in areas already in close proximity to transport hubs such as at Whittlesford, allows for far greater leverage of investment from development towards already existing infrastructure, where this can be utilised to increased benefit of sustainable movement, patronage of facilities such as health care, education and bus services, and complement committed investment strategies from the public purse.

Opportunities for active travel such as walking and cycling should be heavily promoted to reduce the impacts of climate change and ensure a good quality of life. New developments should be self-sustaining, with opportunity to travel actively locally for essentials such as schools, homes, healthcare services and jobs. Evidence identifies that this is already the trend therefore there is a very good foundation to build on when putting new development forward. Whittlesford is located in an established rail and public transport corridor that is well connected to a wide range of job opportunities and other facilities. The proposed major expansion of the Wellcome Genome Campus will provide further enhancements to this transport infrastructure, but there is scope for further improvements to the connectivity to neighbouring settlements, major areas of employment within Greater Cambridge and to the south in Uttlesford, including Stansted Airport. Please refer to story board 1 and Figures 1-4 for further detail.

Priorities for new infrastructure should promote a reduced reliance on cars and promotion of active and sustainable travel. There are a number of initiatives in the pipeline for new infrastructure, which are steering towards the right direction, including: - Trumpington Park and Ride - Cambridge South Railway Station - East-west Rail - Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) - Smarter travel initiatives Active travel corridors within and beyond developments should take priority over other forms of unsustainable transport. In addition, infrastructure such as a micro consolidation centres to help promote virtual mobility, a community concierge in a high profile location or a mobility hub are all alternative methods of promoting sustainable travel within new transport related infrastructure. The proposals at Whittlesford provide potential to provide or use a number of these initiatives to support new residents.

Nothing chosen

Reviewing Green Belt boundaries is particularly relevant to Cambridge, given its primary purpose of its role in protecting Cambridge as an historic city. The NPPF underlines the Government’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of Green Belts, stating that once established, these should only be amended in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and only through the preparation or updating of plans. The NPPF indicates that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the Council should consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, channelling development towards the urban area. Where Green Belt land is required for release, consideration should first be given to land which is previously developed and/or well served by public transport. When viewed in the context of the scale of the housing need in Greater Cambridge and its unmet need, it is critical that all appropriate options are fully explored, including amendments to Green Belt boundaries. Grosvenor consider that on the basis of the extent of development need, there are exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land for housing in Greater Cambridge. This will provide an opportunity to identify sites which can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain. The Green Belt Review should be a robust assessment, undertaken in accordance with the national Planning Practice Guidance and the NPPF, specifically taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. Further, the guidance refers to “ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt land” therefore it is dependent on the credentials of the site. For reasons set out in the attached story boards, Whittlesford is an ideal sustainable location for growth where land removed from the Green Belt can make a valuable contribution to meeting future needs. The existing Local Plan spatial strategy for the City and South Cambridgeshire relies upon major growth weighted to the north and west, whereas investment in the life science and research based employment parks has been directed towards the south and east of Greater Cambridge. The Green Belt review should therefore address this imbalance in order to provide new homes in locations with good public transport facilities and where conveniently accessible by cycling and walking. The Green Belt review should also take into account the four big themes when revising the Green Belt boundaries. These are all part of the overall exceptional circumstances to justify an amendment to the Green Belt to allow for the expansion of Whittlesford to help meet the need for homes and other facilities in Greater Cambridge to support growth, minimise congestion and reduce travel by private car. The location of Whittlesford Railway Station provides the opportunity to consolidate the existing settlements into a comprehensive sustainable community without compromising the essential functions of the Green Belt.

42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6 (1- Most Preferred 6- Least Preferred) Densification of existing urban areas, edge of Cambridge (outside the green belt), edge of Cambridge (green belt), dispersal (new settlements), dispersal (villages), public transport corridors. Given the scale of housing need in Greater Cambridge, a combination of spatial strategies is likely to be needed including edge of Cambridge (Green Belt), new settlements and extensions to villages and other settlements in sustainable locations in the rural areas where they are already served, or with potential for growth, to generate the necessary critical mass to meet the community’s needs. Transport corridors provide the most sustainable options for managing growth. As was clear from the now adopted Local Plan hearings and Inspectors’ Report, reliance on the delivery of new settlements to accommodate a substantial level of the GCP target will not be sufficient. Sites which can be delivered quickly are as equally as important as the longer term ones if GCP is to meet its housing need. The consolidation of Whittlesford and Whittlesford Parkway would stitch together the existing disparate built form through the provision of connected routes and high quality supporting community and social infrastructure. This would create a consolidated and integrated community with convenient access through a choice of transport modes to major centres of employment in and around the City, the Wellcome Genome Campus and beyond to the planned North Uttlesford Garden Community and Stansted Airport. Please also refer to the attached story boards which provide further detail of the potential merits of growth at Whittlesford, which will also assist in rebalancing the current emphasis of growth to the north and west of Greater Cambridge.

No uploaded files for public display

NPPF paragraphs 122 and 123 encourage making the optimal use of its land in order to meet identified need for housing as much as possible. Therefore the NPPF supports high density development, especially in highly accessible locations subject to good quality design. This is further supported by findings set out in the 2020 Housing Design Audit for England which identified a clear link between higher density housing schemes and better design stating: “Concerns expressed by local councillors that higher density developments are leading to lower quality outcomes seems not to be supported by the research. Indeed the opposite seems to be the case” (Housing Design Audit for England, P.79)

Similar to Q.42 - Growth at the edge of Cambridge could relieve some pressure the city is under. This could be achieved through a well-planned urban extension, integrating the edge into city transport systems. However, as stated in response to Q42 a combination of spatial strategies will be needed, to provide choice, flexibility and to serve in the most sustainable way the various needs of communities and the wide distribution of employment and other facilities in Greater Cambridge.